Still more poly links

[chanaleh]

I always think these posts will be "last one for a while", but there's just more coming up all the time. :-}

This whole Tiger Woods thing is causing a fair bit of commentary from the non-monogamy faction (much as the whole Bill Clinton thing did 12 years ago). But in particular, I couldn't not repost the one from my fandom object Jay Michaelson,

Comments

[jehanna]

Well, having just gotten out of a 5 year relationship with someone raised like little Bradley, I can conclusively state that this is the WORST PARENTING EVER.

I just do not understand people who are willing to sacrifice their children to the will of the mob. Seriously. It breaks my head every time I try to contemplate it. You've produced this little person who is your entire responsibility out of your own flesh and blood, and what the mob thinks is more important that who that child is? REALLY?

I always end up wanting to just scream and throw things. I can't even read this sort of article without wanting to go on rampages.

[marmota]

I wonder if there is some sort of philosophical disconnect here... I found both examples horrible. In the first, no one is explaining to the kid why to fit in, and in the second no one is explaining the full consequences of not fitting in... the focus seems to be on whether they're happy or not, which has nothing to do with whether they're a productive member of society.

[marmota]

All that's being discussed in the cases of Jona and Violet is stopping the onset of puberty, so there is no need for a way back. This therapy is only a pause button, not a definitive journey down one path or another. Combined with the requisite psychological counseling to determine if this really is the right path for the child as they become an adult, I think you overestimate the downside and I suspect you're blind to the very real potential upside.

Speaking as someone who wishes this therapy had been available 30 years ago when it would have done me some good, this is a blessing for those who can partake of it.

[firstfrost]

I do understand the instinct to herd back to the norm. But I think it's unlikely that anyone is going to grow up behaving as the other gender for the rest of their life because of a whim they had at age three. The nature of whims is that they don't last.

[vettecat]

I think it's just as unfair to say monogamy is unnatural as to say that polyamory is, or heterosexual vs. homosexual, etc. People are wired differently. sdavido and I are both completely monogamous (which works out well, since we're married); when single, neither of us was emotionally able to date more than one person at a time, even casually. I now can't imagine being attracted to anyone else. I would never force my lifestyle, or my religion for that matter, on anyone else, but I should have an equal right to not be called "unnatural."

[chanaleh]

Well, because the part it DOES nevertheless counteract is the "OMG BIBLE SEZ ONE FLESH" argument that there is NO ROOM in a deeply moral/ethical conception of marriage for OUTSIDE ATTACHMENTS.

I see what you're saying about the fundamental disconnect, though. :-}

It's clear to me that societal conceptions of what constitutes an "ideal" or even "good" marriage have tended to shift greatly over the centuries, never mind the millennia, and even within "Western" society. In some ways, this is a real "First World Problem" kind of question -- people never used to live long enough to have to deal with each other for more than 20 years or so ;-) so there was always remarriage but it was more usually due to widowhood, and so on. More to the point, when all your energy goes to bare subsistence, you have none left to worry about whether your marriage is Emotionally Fulfilling.

I have more thoughts on this, but they're going to have to percolate a while, as I am out of time right this second!

poly fidelity and culture

[enochs_fable]

Well, the Christian Bible sez one flesh, anyhow. The Jewish prohibition against same was culturally based.

Even more than the fundamental disconnect, here's what bugs me:

• Tiger was actively or by omission lying to his wife about agreements they made. Most poly people I've been acquainted with also tend to have their own agreements about what works for them - and breaking those is cheating. I've seen it be incredibly destructive, and when poly is involved, it tends to be a terrible rippling tide that destroys multiple relationships... and Michaelson wants to claim this as a pecadillo rather than an ethical failing? If someone is going to cheat, having open relationships only changes the particulars of the cheating - not the fundamental disrespect and disregard for other's feelings at the core of it. Using an instance of infidelity as a platform to promote polyamory seems deeply misguided to me.
  
• Notice about how he pulls out the old chestnut about male desire, and tosses feminism under the bus - maybe I'm misreading, and maybe it's

[tigerbright]

Oh, Dear God, how can you let children be tortured the way Bradley is being tortured?

[drwex]

*leaves a pebble*

You're inspiring me to post, too. And, credit where credit is due, Pygment was the one who first found the Lourde quote. I'm glad it resonated with you, too.